kolbert, as trustee of the harold arlen trust, …€¦ · armstrong, billie holiday, mel torme,...
TRANSCRIPT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 1
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
SA MUSIC, LLC and WILLIAM KOLBERT, AS TRUSTEE OF THE HAROLD ARLEN TRUST,
Plaintiffs,
v. AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES LLC, VALLEYARM DIGITAL LIMITED, LENANDES LTD, GIACOMO VERANI, and LIMITLESS INT. RECORDINGS,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT JURY DEMAND
Basis for Jurisdiction
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action against
Defendants Google LLC, Valleyarm Digital Limited, Lenandes Ltd, Giacomo Verani,
and Limitless Int. Recordings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) because this is an action
for copyright infringement arising under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§
101, 106, 115, 501, 602 et seq.
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 1 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 2
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
Introduction
2. Plaintiffs are the legal and/or beneficial copyright owners of musical
works authored by Harold Arlen one of the premier composers of American music.
3. Harold Arlen wrote or co-wrote some of the most popular modern songs,
including Over the Rainbow from The Wizard of Oz and many other seminal works
in the American songbook, including I’ve Got the World on a String, Stormy Weather,
The Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, Come Rain or Come Shine, Get Happy, Ill Wind
and It’s Only A Paper Moon.
4. The Composition Chart annexed as Exhibit A provides a list of Plaintiffs’
copyrighted compositions at issue in this case (the “Subject Compositions”).
5. The works of Arlen have been recorded by the most prominent jazz and
popular artists of all time, including Art Tatum, Art Blakey, Benny Goodman, Billie
Holliday, Buddy Rich, Cab Calloway, Charlie Parker, Coleman Hawkins, Count
Basie, Dean Martin, Dizzy Gillespie, Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, Etta James,
Frank Sinatra, Fred Astaire, John Coltrane, Judy Garland, Lena Horne, Louis
Armstrong, Miles Davis, Quincy Jones, Ray Charles, and Sarah Vaughan to name
only a few. These monumental works of art are, quite literally, national treasures.
6. These and other recordings of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted musical works
have been pirated by the Defendants in this case. Defendants are all players in the
digital music business that participate in, and jointly profit from, making digital
phonorecord deliveries (i.e., downloads) of pirated recordings of the Subject
Compositions.
7. Digital phonorecord deliveries of musical recordings constitute a
reproduction and distribution of the musical work embodied in the digital recording
and require a license from the copyright owner of the musical composition, sometimes
referred to as a “mechanical license.”
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 2 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 3
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
8. Defendants have failed to obtain any license that would authorize them
to reproduce, distribute, or sell the recordings of the Subject Compositions identified
on Exhibit B and, as a result, Defendants have infringed Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights of
reproduction and distribution of the Subject Compositions, under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1)
and 106(3).
9. Further, the activity of making digital phonorecord deliveries of pirated
recordings of the Subject Compositions does not qualify for a compulsory license or
as a covered activity under Section 115 of the Copyright Act.
10. A list of the pirated recordings of the Subject Compositions that
Defendants have reproduced and distributed without authorization, including by
making digital phonorecord deliveries, thus far identified, is set forth in the
Infringement Chart annexed as Exhibit B.
11. All of the recordings identified on Exhibit B are pirated. Plaintiffs have
thus far identified over 220 pirated recordings of the Subject Compositions that have
been separately reproduced and distributed as digital phonorecord deliveries by
Defendants through the Amazon music store as set forth in the Infringement Chart
annexed as Exhibit B. Defendants have infringed these works in a concerted and
distinct distribution chain.
Defendants’ Piracy is Massive and Flagrant
12. The scope and flagrant nature of Defendants’ piracy cannot be
understated. It is obvious that the recordings listed in Exhibit B are pirated by virtue
of the scope of the Limitless catalog, the replication of the original album artwork
(while removing the original label logos), and the continued distribution of legitimate
versions of the recordings by the rightful record label owners on Amazon.
13. Limitless, which has no web presence and no listing on Discogs.com, is
selling recordings by virtually every well-known recording artist from the 1930s
through the 1960s, including Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Miles Davis, Louis
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 3 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 4
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
Armstrong, Billie Holiday, Mel Torme, Ray Charles, Tony Bennett, and Judy
Garland.
14. In addition, strong evidence of the piracy can be gleaned directly from
Amazon store from the comparison of the bootlegged Limitless catalog entries side-
by-side with legal recordings being sold by legitimate record labels.
15. For example, album cover art has been an essential part of the packaging
and marketing and labels have taken great care to create album artwork commensurate
with the music it accompanied. Not so with Limitless, which has often either stolen
the album art and music wholesale or employed stock artwork for its bootlegged
albums.
16. Invariably, Limitless has simply applied a silver border with its name
written around the original release artwork and obscuring the original label logo as
exemplified by the following Amazon screenshots comparing the Limitless release
with the original:
17. In many instances, the Amazon music store is selling the legitimate
release by the original label side by side with Limitless’ bootlegged copy. For
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 4 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 5
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
example, in 1959, Atlantic Records released The Genius of Ray Charles, which
included his acclaimed version of Come Rain Or Come Shine. The album is widely
hailed and was ranked number 263 on Rolling Stone’s Top 500 albums of all time.1
Atlantic is still selling the record but now, it has direct competition from Defendants,
who have appropriated the recording and the album artwork and are selling their
bootleg at a 32% discount side by side with the Atlantic original on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=the+genius+of+ray+charles+come+rain+or+come+shine&i=digital-music&ref=nb_sb_noss (11/29/2019)
18. Similarly, in 1957, Capitol Records released the album Alone, by Judy
Garland, which included her recording of the Arlen composition I Gotta Right To Sing
The Blues. Capitol sells the recording on the Amazon music store in direct
competition with Defendants, who sell their pirated copy for a deep discount. In
addition, Defendants have appropriated album artwork (eliminating the Capitol logo)
as evidenced by the following the Amazon screenshot:
1 "263) The Genius of Ray Charles". Rolling Stone. New York. November 1, 2003. Archived from the
original on June 15, 2009. Retrieved May 27, 2013. https://web.archive.org/web/20090615041624/http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6626052/263_the_genius_of_ray_Charles (11/29/2019)
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 5 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 6
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=alone+judy+garland+right+to+sing+the+blues&i=digital-music&ref=nb_sb_noss (11/29/2019)
19. The Infringement Chart also includes no less than four full albums
originally released by Capitol Records containing five Arlen works recorded by Frank
Sinatra including It’s Only A Paper Moon, Get Happy, Last Night When We Were
Young, Ill Wind, and his iconic version of I’ve Got The World On A String. Defendants
appropriated the album artwork and sold each recording for less than Capitol.2
2 Defendants enhanced their version of the 1954 Capitol album Songs for Young Lovers
by adding I’ve Got The World On A String. The song was one of the first recorded by Sinatra for Capitol Records in 1953, but was released as a single and was not part of Songs for Young Lovers.
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 6 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 7
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
20. Defendants have, on occasion, flagrantly bootlegged entire album’s
devoted to Harold Arlen’s works. For example, in 1961, Columbia released
recordings of 12 Arlen works on Tony Bennett Sings a String of Harold Arlen.
Columbia is still selling the album, including on Amazon for $9.99. Defendants have
bootlegged the entire album and are underselling Columbia’s legitimate version:
21. Similarly, in 1955, Clef Records (now Verve) released a dozen of
Arlen’s works recorded by one of the greatest jazz pianists, Oscar Peterson. Verve is
still selling the album and individual tracks, including on Amazon. Defendants have
bootlegged the entire album and are underselling the Verve legitimate version:
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 7 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 8
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
22. In addition to the pirated recordings of Plaintiffs’ compositions,
Defendants have distributed a broad and deep catalog of thousands of other pirated
recordings through the Amazon store, including many entire albums of seminal
musical works. For example, the Limitless catalog available in the Amazon store
includes the following seminal albums:
a. Elvis Presley’s debut album, Elvis Presley:
b. Surfin’ USA, by The Beach Boys:
c. James Brown’s debut album, Please, Please, Please:
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 8 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 9
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
d. Bob Dylan’s debut studio album, Bob Dylan:
e. Roy Orbison’s Crying:
23. All of this should have made it obvious that Limitless is operating a huge
music piracy operation. Valleyarm and Amazon chose to ignore the evidence of piracy
and to participate in the infringement on a massive scale.
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 9 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 10
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
24. To put this case in context, in 2007, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a single
mother of four in Brainerd, Minnesota, was found liable, after three separate jury
trials, for copyright infringement for using file sharing software that enabled the
unauthorized downloading and distribution of 24 recordings by the Goo Goo Dolls
and Def Leppard, among others. The juries awarded statutory damages in all three
trials of up to $80,000 per infringement. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
ultimately affirmed statutory damages in the amount of $9,250 for each infringed
recording, for a total award of $222,000. Ms. Thomas-Rassett declared bankruptcy as
she had “no other option.”
25. In 2009, Joel Tenenbaum, a Massachusetts college student, who also
used file-sharing software that permitted others to download 30 recordings by Limp
Bizkit and Blink-182, was found liable and the jury awarded statutory damages of
$22,500 per recording, for a judgment that totaled $675,000 forcing Mr. Tenenbaum
to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
26. Unlike Ms. Thomas-Rassett and Mr. Tenenbaum who were not alleged
to have sold their infringing recordings or profited from their conduct, Defendants in
this case have engaged in massive music piracy operation for the purpose of
generating profits from their sales of pirated recordings and by other means.
27. The copyright infringement operation detailed in this Complaint is only
the latest in a long line of piracy schemes that have plagued composers, publishers,
and record labels since the inception of the music industry over 100 years ago, when
the perforated rolls used by player pianos to perform musical works were pirated. See
Aeolian Co. v. Royal Music Co., 196 F. 926 (W.D.N.Y. 1912).
28. As the technology employed by the music industry to reproduce musical
works advanced, bootlegging efforts by music pirates kept pace. In the 1960s and
1970s, organized criminal enterprises engaged in record and tape piracy operations
on a scale that is dwarfed by the infringing conduct explained herein. Like the
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 10 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 11
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
Defendants in this case, the “tape pirates” and “record pirates” of years past
unlawfully duplicated popular pre-existing recordings, and then claimed their liability
was limited by the compulsory license provision of the 1909 Copyright Act, § 1(e).
29. The landmark case Duchess Music Corp. v. Stern, 458 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir.
1972) settled the issue as to whether tape pirates could limit their liability for piracy
under the compulsory license provision of the 1909 Copyright Act. In Duchess, the
defendant tape pirate engaged in the same conduct identified in this Complaint, and
claimed her conduct was lawful because the compulsory license provision of the
Copyright Act authorized the reproduction and distribution of the musical works
embodied on the recordings she pirated. The Ninth Circuit rejected the argument,
stating, “She may not continue her piracy under the flag of compulsory licensing.”
The Duchess court concluded that the tape pirates’ activity was ineligible for a
compulsory license and that reproduction of a musical composition on a pirated
recording infringed the copyright in the composition, even when a compulsory license
was claimed.3
30. The holding in Duchess was codified when the Copyright Act was
revised in 1976. The statutory bar against compulsory licensing of pirated recordings
continues in the recent amendments to Section 115 of the Copyright Act, which
provides that reproduction and distribution of pirated sound recordings is not a
covered activity under Section 115 and is ineligible for a compulsory license.
31. Defendants are nothing more than modern tape pirates and their conduct
constitutes willful copyright infringement of the Subject Compositions in violation of
3 The criminal conduct of “tape pirates” became a priority of the Attorney General of the
United States, Edward H. Levi, in 1975 when the Justice Department determined that decisions reached by four Circuit Courts of Appeals, including the Ninth Circuit in Duchess, rendered tape pirates criminally liable even where the statutory royalty was tendered. See Heilman v. Levi, 391 F.Supp. 1106 (E.D.Wisc. 1975). Criminal copyright infringement sentences continue to this day. See Matter of Zaragoza-Vaquero, 26 I&N Dec. 814 (BIA 2016)(defendant sentenced to 33 months in prison and ordered to be removed from the United States for selling bootleg copies of music CDs at a Florida flea market, as a crime involving moral turpitude).
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 11 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 12
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
the United States Copyright Act [17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 106, 115, 501, 602 et seq.] (the
“Copyright Act”).
SA Music, LLC
32. Plaintiff SA Music, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company and Sam
Arlen is the sole member of the company.
The Harold Arlen Trust
33. Plaintiff William Kolbert is the Trustee of the Harold Arlen Trust (the
“Harold Arlen Trust”), a trust created by Harold Arlen in his will.
Amazon
34. Upon information and belief, Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. is a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with a place of business
at 410 Terry Ave. N Seattle, WA 98109.
35. Upon information and belief, Defendant Amazon Digital Services LLC
is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with
a place of business at 410 Terry Avenue N, Seattle, WA 98109. Defendants
Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Digital Services LLC are united in interest and shall
be referred to, individually and collectively, as “Amazon”.
36. Amazon has owned and operated a digital music store under various
names since 2007, including “Amazon MP3” at launch and currently, “Amazon Music
Store” or “Digital Music Store” that sells permanent downloads. Amazon currently
offers a catalog of over 40 million tracks for sale as permanent downloads in the U.S.
37. Amazon specifically selected and contracted with Valleyarm and/or
Limitless to provide the Limitless digital music catalog to be sold through the Amazon
music store on negotiated financial terms.
38. Amazon received all of the recordings of the Subject Compositions
identified on Exhibit B from Limitless and/or Valleyarm. Amazon then reproduced,
distributed and sold these pirated recordings of the Subject Compositions through the
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 12 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 13
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
Amazon music store, without any licenses, as permanent downloads among other
types of digital phonorecord deliveries identified herein.
Valleyarm
39. Upon information and belief, Defendant Valleyarm Digital Limited
(“Valleyarm”) is a business entity organized under the laws of Australia with a place
of business at Suite 1.09, 838 Collins Street, Docklands, VIC 3008, Australia.
40. Valleyarm has distributed, and continues to distibute, digital music to the
Amazon music store and has delivered thousands of recordings to the Amazon music
store for sale throughout the U.S.
41. Valleyarm specifically selected and contracted with Limitless to provide
the Limitless digital music catalog to be sold through the Amazon music store on
negotiated financial terms.
42. At Limitless’ direction, Valleyarm unlawfully reproduced all of the
pirated recordings of the Subject Compositions identified on Exhibit B, distributed
them to Amazon, and unlawfully authorized Amazon to make digital phonorecord
deliveries, as specifically set forth in Exhibit B.
Limitless
43. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lenandes Ltd (“Lenandes”) is a
company organized under the laws of the United Kingdom with a registered office
address at 10 Philpot Lane, London, England, EC3M 8AA.
44. Upon information and belief, Defendant Giacomo Verani (“Verani”) is
the sole director and shareholder of Lenandes and controls its operations.
45. Upon information and belief, Defendant Limitless Int. Recordings is a
business entity whose country of origin and business address are unknown to
Plaintiffs and is controlled by Verani and/or is the trade name under which Verani
and/or Lenandes are operating. Lenandes, Verani, and Limitless Int. Recordings are
united in interest and shall be referred to, collectively, as “Limitless”.
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 13 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 14
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
46. Upon information and belief, Limitless directly pirated pre-existing
recordings embodying the Subject Compositions identified on Exhibit B, distributed
them to Valleyarm and/or Amazon, unlawfully authorized Valleyarm’s distribution
and delivery of the pirated recordings to Amazon for sale through the Amazon music
store, and unlawfully authorized Valleyarm and Amazon’s making of digital
phonorecord deliveries in Amazon’s music store as specifically set forth in the
annexed Exhibit B.
47. Upon information and belief, Limitless is simply duplicating recordings
of the Subject Compositions made by others without permission and authorizing
Valleyarm and Amazon to sell reproductions of the pirated copies for profit through
the Amazon music store.
Jurisdiction, Venue and Joinder
48. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Amazon has its
principal place of business in Washington and all Defendants have purposefully
availed or directed their infringing activities in Washington.
49. Further, Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims arise out of (a) the
reproduction and distribution of pirated recordings of the Subject Compositions listed
in Exhibit B, occurring in Washington, directly by Defendants and/or at their
purposeful direction and availment, including the sale of pirated recordings of Subject
Compositions to Washington residents; or (b) transactions consummated within
Washington between Valleyarm and Amazon, concerning reproduction, distribution
and delivery of the pirated recordings of the Subject Compositions.
50. Limitless intentionally directed its distributor, Valleyarm, to distribute
the pirated recordings to Amazon in Washington for sale through the Amazon music
store.
51. Valleyarm and Limitless intentionally distributed and delivered the
pirated recordings of the Subject Compositions identified in Exhibit B to Amazon,
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 14 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 15
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
and unlawfully authorized Amazon to reproduce these pirated recordings of the
Subject Compositions through the Amazon music store and to sell permanent
downloads to Washington consumers.
52. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1391(b), 1391(c)
and 1400(a) because Amazon has its principal place of business in this state. In
addition, Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this Judicial District and
have committed unlawful acts of infringement in this Judicial District.
53. Joinder of Limitless, Valleyarm and Amazon is proper under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 20 because Defendants are jointly and severally liable as members of a distinct
distribution chain for the acts of copyright infringement identified herein.
Harold Arlen
54. Harold Arlen (1905–1986) was a master composer and a highly regarded
contributor to the Great American Songbook. The son of a synagogue cantor, Arlen
was born in Buffalo, New York and emerged as one of the greatest American
composers and songwriters, writing extraordinarily complex melodies and harmonies
that remained accessible to a broad popular audience.
55. Early in his career, Arlen wrote songs for musicals, including the entire
scores for Broadway shows such as Cotton Club Parade, Life Begins at 8:40, Bloomer
Girl, St. Louis Woman, Jamaica and Saratoga, among others.
56. Arlen was also active in Hollywood and composed the music for some
of the greatest film musicals of all time, most notably all the music in the 1939 motion
picture classic “The Wizard of Oz,” including Ding, Dong! The Witch Is Dead, We're
Off To See The Wizard, and Over The Rainbow.
57. Over The Rainbow, performed by Judy Garland in the film, won the
Academy Award for Best Original Song. The song is one of the most enduring
standards of the 20th century and was voted number one on the "Songs of the Century"
list compiled by the Recording Industry Association of America and the National
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 15 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 16
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
Endowment for the Arts. The American Film Institute also ranked Over The Rainbow
the greatest movie song of all time.
58. Arlen successfully collaborated with the greatest Tin Pan Alley lyricists,
including “Yip” Harburg, Ira Gershwin, Johnny Mercer, Leo Robin and Ted Koehler.
59. Arlen’s partnership with Harburg extended over many decades. With
Billy Rose, they wrote It's Only A Paper Moon in 1933. They followed up with a
successful revue, Life Begins at 8:40, which included lyric collaborations with his old
friend, Ira Gershwin, including Fun to Be Fooled, You're A Builder Upper, and Let's
Take A Walk Around The Block.
60. Arlen was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 1971 and was
honored with its highest accolade, the Johnny Mercer Award, in 1982. In 1996, Arlen
was honored and memorialized by the U.S. Postal Service with his own stamp:
SA Music LLC and the Harold Arlen Trust
61. Harold Arlen’s son, Sam Arlen, acquired the U.S. copyrights in the
Subject Compositions between 1989 and 2015, by termination notices that he, as sole
statutory heir under Section 304 of the Copyright Act of 1976, served and filed with
Copyright Office.
62. In 2018, Sam Arlen assigned the U.S. copyrights in the Subject
Compositions, as set forth in the Composition Chart annexed as Exhibit A, along with
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 16 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 17
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
all accrued causes of action, to his company, SA Music, LLC. SA Music, LLC is the
legal and/or beneficial owner of the U.S. copyright in certain of the Subject
Compositions as identified in Exhibit A, along with all accrued causes of action.
63. Plaintiff Harold Arlen Trust acquired the U.S. copyrights identified in
the Composition Chart annexed as Exhibit A by operation of will and through
termination notices served and filed by Harold Arlen during his lifetime with the U.S.
Copyright Office under Section 304 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
64. Plaintiff Harold Arlen Trust is the legal owner of certain of the U.S.
copyright in certain of the Subject Compositions as identified in Exhibit A, along with
all accrued causes of action.
The Subject Compositions
65. Plaintiffs are the owners of the musical compositions listed in the
Composition Chart annexed as Exhibit A (collectively, the “Subject Compositions”)
that are the subject of this action.
66. The copyrights for all the Subject Compositions have been registered and
renewed with the U.S. Copyright Office, and each Subject Composition is the subject
of a valid U.S. copyright. The Composition Chart annexed as Exhibit A identifies the
copyright registration numbers for each of the Subject Compositions.
67. Plaintiffs are the owner of a share in each of the Subject Compositions
in the percentages listed on Exhibit A.
68. As discussed more fully below, the Defendants have infringed, and are
continuing to infringe, the copyright in each of the Subject Compositions by willfully
reproducing and distributing them without a license.
Background
69. Before digital music distribution, recorded music was physically
distributed through brick-and-mortar stores that were confined by the limitations of
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 17 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 18
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
shelf space. Recording artists signed exclusive recording contracts with record labels
in order to have their records pressed and distributed in national record stores.
70. It is hard to imagine that a person walking into Tower Records, off the
street, with arms full of CDs and vinyl records and claiming to be the record label for
Frank Sinatra, Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald, could succeed in having that
store sell their pirated copies directly next to the same albums released by legendary
record labels, Capitol, RCA and Columbia, and at a lower price.
71. Yet, this exact practice occurs every day in the digital music business,
where there is unlimited digital shelf space (for example, there are more than 50
million recordings in the Amazon music store) and a complete willingness by the
digital music stores to seek popular and iconic recordings from any source, legitimate
or not, provided they participate in sharing the proceeds.
72. The iconic status of the pirated recordings of the Subject Compositions
at issue in this case cannot be overstated. Any list of the most popular singers and
musicians of any period between 1930 and 1970 would be replete with the artists who
have recorded Plaintiffs’ musical works, some of them multiple times.
73. All the recordings on the Infringement Chart (Exh. B) embodying the
Subject Compositions are pirated copies, or “bootlegs.” Defendants’ digital
phonorecord deliveries of these pirated copies were all made without authorization
from the copyright owners of the sound recordings or those who originally “fixed”
them as required by Section 115 (discussed below), and the copyright owners of the
Subject Compositions.
74. Defendants all generate illicit revenue for themselves when these and
other pirated copies are sold or distributed. Plaintiffs have not authorized any
reproduction or distribution of these pirate recordings of the Subject Compositions
(or any identified on Exhibit B) and it is an infringement for which all the Defendants
are jointly and severally liable.
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 18 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 19
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
The Pirated Recordings
75. All of the recordings identified in Exhibit B are pirated. Defendants have
taken recordings of the Subject Compositions – in which they hold no rights – and
reproduced and distributed pirated copies of them to the public, for profit, without
authorization.
76. Virtually all of the recordings at issue in this case were originally made
between 1930 and 1972.
77. Since Limitless did not originally “fix” any of the relevant recordings,
the only way for it to acquire the rights to duplicate and distribute them would be to
purchase or license rights in these recordings.
78. Upon information and belief, Limitless never acquired permission or the
rights to reproduce or distribute any of these recordings from any person who lawfully
fixed them or from the owner of the copyright in the sound recording. Limitless is
simply duplicating previously released recordings and selling them as if they were the
rightful owner. Valleyarm and Amazon are duplicating Limitless’s pirated sound
recordings of the Subject Compositions and selling the pirated copies for profit. Defendants Have Infringed the Subject Compositions
79. Section 115 of the Copyright Act expressly excludes Defendants’
reproduction and distribution of pirated recordings of the Subject Compositions as a
covered activity eligible for a compulsory license under Section 115 and Defendants
have failed to obtain any licenses for the Subject Compositions that authorize such
activity.
80. The Infringement Chart annexed as Exhibit B sets forth (1) each pirated
recording of the Subject Compositions within the Limitless, Valleyarm, Amazon
distribution chain thus far identified by Plaintiffs that these Defendants have
reproduced, distributed, and/or made available for digital phonorecord deliveries
through Amazon’s digital music store without authorization.
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 19 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 20
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
81. The various types of unauthorized reproductions, distributions, and/or
digital phonorecord delivery configurations of each of the pirated recordings of the
Subject Compositions made and/or authorized by Defendants are discussed briefly
below.
Permanent Downloads
82. Permanent download means a digital transmission of a sound recording
of a musical work in the form of a download, where such sound recording is accessible
for listening without restriction as to the amount of time or number of times it may be
accessed.
83. Amazon has made available, reproduced, and distributed permanent
downloads of the recordings of the Subject Compositions listed on Exhibit B to its
customers.
84. Amazon was unlawfully authorized and directed to do so by Limitless
and/or Valleyarm.
85. Reproducing or distributing permanent downloads of recordings of the
Subject Compositions require licenses from the copyright owners of the Subject
Compositions and all of the Defendants failed to obtain such licenses for each entry
on the Infringement Chart at Exhibit B.
86. The reproduction and distribution of permanent downloads of
recordings of the Subject Compositions by Amazon, and the authorization of this
activity by Limitless and Valleyarm, infringes Plaintiffs’ exclusive reproduction and
distribution rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106(1) and (3).
Promotional Clips
87. Defendant Amazon has a feature in its online music store that allows
users to interactive stream a sample, promotional clip, of the recordings that are
available for sale as permanent downloads.
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 20 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 21
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
88. These promotional clips are 30–90 seconds long and their purpose is to
encourage the purchase of the tracks as permanent downloads.
89. Amazon has distributed copies of the recordings of the Subject
Compositions identified on Exhibit B as promotional clips in its online music store.
90. These promotional clips of recordings of the Subject Compositions are
interactive streams that require a license from the copyright owners of the Subject
Compositions and Defendants all failed to obtain such licenses for each entry on the
Infringement Chart annexed as Exhibit B.
91. Defendants reproduction and distribution of promotional clips of pirated
recordings of the Subject Compositions, and authorization of this activity by the
respective Pirate Label and Distributor Defendants, infringes Plaintiffs’ exclusive
reproduction and distribution rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106(1) and (3).
Server Copies
92. Amazon has reproduced at least one copy of each recording of the
Subject Compositions identified on Exhibit B on its servers for sale of permanent
downloads through the Amazon music store as server copies.
93. Amazon was unlawfully authorized to engage in this activity by
Limitless and/or Valleyarm.
94. Making server copies of any of the recordings embodying the Subject
Compositions identified on Exhibit B requires a license from the copyright owners of
the Subject Compositions.
95. All Defendants failed to obtain such licenses for each of the recordings
embodying the Subject Compositions identified on Exhibit B.
96. Amazon’s reproduction of server copies of pirated recordings of the
Subject Compositions for sale of permanent downloads through the Amazon music
store, and authorization of this activity by Limitless and Valleyarm, as well the
distribution of the server copies of pirated recordings of Subject Composition to
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 21 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 22
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
Amazon, by Limitless and/or Valleyarm, infringes Plaintiffs’ exclusive reproduction
and distribution rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106(1) and (3).
Making Available
97. Defendants have made and continue to make available, or authorize
making available, permanent downloads of the recordings of the Subject
Compositions identified on Exhibit B to the public by delivering, uploading and/or
offering them as permanent downloads through the Amazon music store.
98. The Defendants’ making available recordings of the Subject
Compositions identified on Exhibit B for permanent downloads, and authorization of
this activity, by Limitless and/or Valleyarm, requires a license from the copyright
owners of the Subject Compositions
99. Defendants failed to obtain such licenses for each recording of the
Subject Compositions identified on Exhibit B and have thereby infringed Plaintiffs’
exclusive distribution rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106(3) as a “deemed distribution.”
A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004, 1014 (9th Cir. 2001); Perfect 10, Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 487 F.3d 701 718–19 (9th Cir. 2007).
Importation
100. Importation of phonorecords of a musical composition acquired outside
the U.S. requires authorization of the owner of the copyright of the musical
composition under Section 602 of the Copyright Act. Importation without the
authority of the owner of the copyright in that composition is an infringement of the
exclusive distribution rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106(3).
101. Defendants have engaged in the unauthorized importation of
phonorecords of the Subject Compositions, acquired outside the U.S., by digital
phonorecord deliveries, or other means.
102. Limitless and Valleyarm are located outside the United States.
Valleyarm, at the direction of Limitless, and Amazon have engaged in the importation
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 22 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 23
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
of phonorecords of each recording embodying the Subject Compositions listed on
Exhibit B into the United States by digital phonorecord delivery, or other delivery of
phonorecords.
103. None of the Defendants obtained importation authorization from the U.S.
copyright owners of the Subject Compositions.
104. Defendants’ respective importations of phonorecords embodying the
Subject Compositions identified on Exhibit B infringe Plaintiffs’ exclusive
importation rights under 17 U.S.C. § 602 and distribution rights under 17 U.S.C. §
106(3).
Willfulness
105. The infringing conduct of all of the Defendants is willful. Limitless
knows that it does not have authority to reproduce, distribute or for importation of the
recordings of the Subject Compositions listed on Exhibit B, or to authorize these
actions by Valleyarm and Amazon. Limitless has pirated thousands of recordings and
sold them in the United States through the Amazon music store.
106. Similarly, Valleyarm did not perform any investigation or due diligence
to confirm that Limitless had authorization to reproduce, distribute, make, or
authorize the making of digital phonorecord deliveries, or the importation, of the
recordings of the Subject Compositions identified on Exhibit B.
107. In fact, Valleyarm has had knowledge of the infringing conduct of
Limitless and has nevertheless continued to make digital phonorecord deliveries and
other reproductions and distributions of the pirated recordings of the Subject
Compositions that Limitless provides without licenses, and/or were recklessly
indifferent or willfully blind to their own infringing conduct.
108. Further, Amazon has had knowledge of its own infringing conduct and
that of Limitless and Valleyarm and has continued to work with them and make digital
phonorecord deliveries and other reproductions and distributions of the pirated
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 23 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 24
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
recordings of the Subject Compositions that Limitless and Valleyarm provide and/or
were recklessly indifferent or willfully blind to their own infringing conduct.
109. Amazon has willfully failed to employ adequate human resources,
screening mechanisms, or use of digital fingerprinting technology to detect
unlawfully duplicated recordings in their stores that it routinely uses for other
services, for example, Amazon’s “scan and match” service.
110. In addition to the recordings identified on Exhibit B, there are believed
to be many other pirated recordings of the Subject Compositions that Defendants have
reproduced and distributed without authorization that Plaintiffs have not yet identified
or that are no longer available on the Amazon music store.
111. The infringement by Defendants of each Subject Composition on each
pirated recording identified in the Infringement Chart at Exhibit B began as of the
date of upload, receipt, delivery to and/or reproduction by Amazon of server copies
of the pirated recordings of the Subject Compositions designated for reproduction and
distribution by Limitless and/or Valleyarm through the Amazon music store and
continues to the present. The infringements identified in Exhibit B all occurred within
three years of filing this Complaint.
112. By their conduct described above, Defendants have infringed and are
continuing to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights on a regular basis in violation of 17
U.S.C. §§ 101, 106, 115, 501, 602 et seq.
113. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ infringement, Plaintiffs
are entitled to elect either an award of actual damages, including Defendants’ profits,
or statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
114. Defendants’ infringement is and has been willful, intentional, purposeful
and with willful disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs. Anything less than maximum
statutory damage awards would encourage infringement, amount to a slap on the
wrist, and reward Defendants for their willful infringement on a grand scale.
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 24 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 25
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
115. Plaintiffs are also entitled to their costs, including reasonable attorneys’
fees, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
116. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502, Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent
injunction prohibiting Defendants from reproducing, distributing, importing and
selling the pirated recordings of the Subject Compositions without license or
authorization in violation of the Copyright Act.
Claim for Copyright Infringement Against Amazon, Valleyarm, and Limitless
117. Plaintiffs repeat each and every allegation of the Complaint.
118. Plaintiffs SA Music LLC and William Kolbert as Trustee of the Harold
Harlen Trust claim that Defendants Amazon, Valleyarm, and Limitless have
unlawfully reproduced, distributed, and imported unauthorized recordings embodying
the Subject Compositions including, but not limited to, the recordings identified in
Exhibit B by the methods identified herein, and/or have unlawfully directed or
authorized this activity.
119. Defendants have thereby willfully infringed, and are continuing to
infringe, Plaintiffs’ copyrights in the Subject Compositions in violation of the
Copyright Act.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that judgment be entered against
Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
1. A declaration that Defendants have infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights in the
Subject Compositions in violation of the Copyright Act;
2. A declaration that each of Defendants’ infringements was willful;
3. At Plaintiffs’ election, an award of Plaintiffs’ actual damages, including
Defendants’ profits, or a separate award of statutory damages in amounts
to be determined by the jury for all infringements involved in the action,
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 25 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 26
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable
individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly
and severally;
4. A permanent injunction barring the Defendants from continued
infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights in the Subject Compositions
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502; and
5. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action, statutory pre-
judgment interest, and such other relief as this Court may deem just and
proper.
Dated: New York, New York January 20, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Philip P. Mann Philip P. Mann, WSBA No: 28860 MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 1218 Third Avenue, Suite 1809 Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone: (206) 436-0900 Fax: (866) 341-5140 E-mail: [email protected] Matthew F. Schwartz (Pro Hac Vice Pending) SCHWARTZ, PONTERIO & LEVENSON, PLLC 134 West 29th Street, Suite 1006 New York, New York 10001 Phone: (212) 714-1200 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 26 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT 27
MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 107 Spring St. Seattle, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 436-0900
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Local Civil Rule 38, and otherwise, Plaintiffs
respectfully demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
DATED: January 20, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Philip P. Mann Philip P. Mann, WSBA No: 28860 MANN LAW GROUP PLLC 1218 Third Avenue, Suite 1809 Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone: (206) 436-0900 Fax: (866) 341-5140 E-mail: [email protected] Matthew F. Schwartz (Pro Hac Vice Pending) SCHWARTZ, PONTERIO & LEVENSON, PLLC 134 West 29th Street, Suite 1006 New York, New York 10001 Phone: (212) 714-1200 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 2:20-cv-00105 Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 27 of 27